Rum, Sodomy and the Lash

[Splash Coxswain]

Headline in today's Sunday Times:

Navy signals for help to recruit gay sailors

The Navy, in an effort to recruit more gays into the Navy, are in contact with Stonewall, according to the Sunday Times today. The 2nd Sea Lord, Vice Admiral B-N (famous for his quote in 2000 that the recruitment of gays would cause less angst than women going to sea), is quoted as saying "it would help a culture in which all our people are valued for themselves". Commodore Paul Docherty said " it is quite possible that we will have a gay admiral one day!"

That'll be a first then! Yeah, Right!!!!

[BEagle]

Has he never heard of Earl Mountbottom?

[incubus]

<insert mandatory Rear Admiral comment here>

[Wycombe]

I thought they were called "Admirals of the narrow seas" ;)

[The Rocket]

Navy signals for help to recruit gay sailors

That has got to be the best headline I have ever seen.

Have they thought about recruiting the Village People again? I was under the impression that they worked miracles in the late 70's with their catchily titled gay recruitment theme "In the Navy"!!!


Bl££bing hell, I ask you!!!:p :p :p :p

[FJJP]

I can't wait for the first RN gay marriage! First Wrens at sea, then banning pin-ups, it's got to be next...

[soddim]

Well, bu**er me!

[airborne_artist]

it is quite possible that we will have a gay admiral one day!"

There already is one - Admirals never retire from the RN, they go onto half-pay, and there's one (who must be 80+ now) who left his wife and daughter (after he left the service) and now lives on a Med. island with his "houseboy".

[Engineer]

Thought that half the navy was gay anyway and the other half nervous. So does this signal the biggest outing party in military history .;)

For serving naval members (pun intended) assistance here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684826178/102-7294992-8537740) :ok:

[cupasoup]

If the RN want to recruit gays, there are a lot of spare ones available in the RAF!

[Training Risky]

Gay and lesbian couples with a registered civil partnership will also be able to apply for married quarters, in all armed forces, from the autumn.

Will this apply to unmarried straight couples too? It doesn't affect me now as I am now married, but when I was 'cohabiting in sin', this affected me somewhat.

Does the Navy (and the rest of the MoD) intend to discriminate against the majority of straight couples who want a quarter?

[Navaleye]

:D I haven't laughed so much, since the day I saw a fat Split A*se get stuck in a kidney hatch.

Ridiculous.

[tablet_eraser]

As one of the "spare" gays in the RAF, I think I'm quite happy where I am...

As for the RN, good for them! I do get annoyed by the occasional silliness of E&D/EO (or whatever it's called this week), but it serves a purpose. The Forces benefit from allowing gay personnel to serve without fear of administrative discharge (no puns, please), which must mean they work better.

It does fall down in some cases, though. As Training Risky points out, it's hardly fair that gay couples can register for a civil partnership and apply for MQs, whereas a common-law heterosexual couple cannot. The Civil Partnerships Act itself is discriminatory, not allowing heterosexual couples to register their partnership legally withou going the whole hog and getting married. Makes the whole exercise a little pointless, in my opinion.

[Scud-U-Like]

And, as another 'spare', so am I....

Isn't a register office marriage a civil partnership? The point of the civil partnerships legislation was to give same sex couples a legally recognised form of partnership. It is marriage, in all but name.

I'm not sure the RN needed to announce this policy with such a fanfare, which tends to suggest their priority is getting a tick in the box, rather than making their administrative regs fairer for all.

[Training Risky]

I don't know the in's and out's (pun intended) of the Civil Partnership scheme... but I assess that it is in no way as binding as a Registry Office marriage.

Marriages are very sticky to dissolve, with issues of divorce, property ownership, child custody, etc (if it all goes wrong, that is).

I would like to know if gay couples would face this problem when splitting up.


Therefore, why should a straight couple have to jump through the hoop of marriage in order to qualify for a quarter. When a gay couple can go through this partnership thing for less hassle.

This makes a mockery of equality in the workplace, but what's new?

[PerArdua]

Isn't it about time the RAF/Navy/Army just got on with the task in hand (Defending Freedom etc) and stopped 'reporting' to the media. I have known of numerous gays and lesbians in the RAF who do fantastic jobs, get on with everybody and just want to be left to get on with their private lives privately.

Live and let live.

PA

[hyd3failure]

Trainingrisky said -
Therefore, why should a straight couple have to jump through the hoop of marriage in order to qualify for a quarter
You don't need to be married to live in a "FAMILY" quarter. BUT if you are Gay then you have to prove your relationship is stable by participating in a civil ceremony... is that discrimination or not?

sounds like it is to me.

[Engineer]

Isn't it about time the RAF/Navy/Army just got on with the task in hand (Defending Freedom etc)

Taking into account the whingeing that goes on in the Military forum. It would appear that task is on the back burner at the present :(

[An Teallach]

As one of those who fought for change through the Courts, I am left wondering what the hell the RN think they are going to learn from NuLabour's pink wing (Stonewall).

Gay folk have served, are serving and will serve perfectly well if left alone. They are attracted to a Service career for exactly the same reasons as their straight colleagues, enjoy the good bits of Service life and, indeed, put up with the same crap as their straight colleagues. Of course SFQs should be available for gay couples and common law straight couples.

I find the very thought that the Service feels it needs to consult the self-appointed leaders of gay Britain both condesdending and discriminatory.

Stonewall is in the game of perpetuating the Gay Ghetto from which it draws most of its funding. It appears now that NuLabour are channelling funds from the Defence Vote to its own Pink Wing for spurious 'consultative' work. I fear this has rather more to do with 2SL kissing NuLabour arse than anything else.

I'll save Buff Hoon some money:

Other than their choice of partners, gay folk and straight folk are exactly the same.

People who want a career in the Armed Forces, want one whether they are gay or straight.

They will respond to the same advertising, do the same training, fight the same wars and die the same deaths.

You do not need to have Service recruiters mince through Manchester with the dizzy queens on 'Pride' marches which a large majority of gay folk don't attend, or place 'special' adverts in the alleged 'gay' press which the great majority of gay folk do not read.

All you need to do to get the best out of your gay Servicemen and women is to do whatever you do to get the best out of your Servicemen and women.

There you go Buff, PM me and I'll tell you where to send the cheque. I'll charge half of whatever Stonewall is charging.

[teeteringhead]

.. is that discrimination or not? not I think hyd 3 as there has to be a family: that is, single parents can get FQs (as they are now), but not UNmarried heteros with no kids.

I recall a case (in the Army) where two single parents who were an "item" were forced to have (and of course pay for) two separate quarters, as they could not be seen to live together! Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "your place or mine?"

And I certainly don't think that "Civil Partnership" is the same as even a civil marriage

[Come to think of it, aren't all marriages civil (no pun). ISTR being told that mine was only valid cos of the registrar sat in the front row of the Church - and she was a muslim!]

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Hyd3f posts bollox.................now there is a suprise:rolleyes:

"You don't need to be married to live in a "FAMILY" quarter. BUT if you are Gay then you have to prove your relationship is stable by participating in a civil ceremony... is that discrimination or not?"

You do need to be married, or have been married and now divorced, to be entitled to FMQ's, and even then divorced folk can only have them if they are needed to "house" their kids during custodial access.

NO civil ceremony....NO FMQ. It's not rocket science and was pointed out to you not that long ago on another thread where you posted the same innacurate twoddle.............twit:rolleyes:

Now lets get this thread back on course..........Gay's in the Navy...it'll never catch on.............sh1t it already has:E

all spelling mmistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Cambridge Crash]

ABIW - FMQs haven't been called that for about 10 years - they are now SFA (Service Family Accommodation) recognising that the term 'married' is pejorative.

Closer to home, for you at least, there was a pilot from Lyneham who was divorced and who had an established gay partner who was also serving. They openly shared a quarter in Siberia (Wroughton OFQs). I cannot recall how the nature of their 'established' partnership was determined, but I think a joint current account was a start. This was 6 years ago - and was a matter for DHE and not the RAF. Didin't cause any problems IIRC.

By the way, there are some excellent, clear and concise postings by purportedly gay service personnel. Once again, the Services are trapped by the 'halo' effect - feeling obliged to contract external agencies or consultants - and as An Teallach pointed out, self-appointed arbiters - to provide advice that could be obtain foc internally!

CC

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Cambridge Crash,

Just sometimes on PPRuNe you come across as a sanctimonious, over-inflated a**e! Is this because of your pseudonym or are you actually just as self-indulgent and arrogant as you seem!?

Your Humble Servant (not really)

Bloggs

Edited to resolve CC's concerns. Nothing implied or intended CC!

[extpwron]

Looked up 'perjorative' here http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

No such word.

[foldingwings]

He means pejorative - but nobody said that you had to be able to spell to go to university!!!!!

[hyd3failure]

From the DHE website:

Entitlement to a Family quarter:

1. You must be over 18 with a family.
2. You must have at least 6 months remaining to serve.
3. You must have completed initial training.


Now, where does it say you have to be married ? Thats why they changed their names from Married quarters to Family quarters.

The reason I know full well that you don't need to be married is that I have a good friend who has split from his girlfriend and has left his mortgaged home and now lives in a FQ.

As far as civil ceremonies go.... best ask HRH about that one eh!!!!!

Now, lets get back to the thread.

[FJJP]

Bloggsy, you get one in every forum. If I've got a pain in the ar*e, I usually ignore it and it gets bored and goes away.

I suggest we do the same, eh? There are people with far more experience of life in general, and the Armed Forces in particular, whose experiences and opinions are more worthy of our consideration. Besides, I didn't go to uni and learn big words [but I did learn to spell...].

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Wonder if the "inflated" one will have the humility to admit his error and apologise for the assumption that Bloggs, along with most of us who frequent these threads, was forced to make, ie he is a sanctimonious "ar@e,.......... which I happily post and whole heartedly concur with:p

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Cambridge Crash]

ABIW - what is it that you are objecting to in my post? 2 statements of fact?

Or that I support a rational comment by a person about outsourcing advice? By the way, must get a spell-check on this chat room!

CC

[STANDTO]

'Bout time we all just got on with it.

This advert always makes me smile

http://www.thegayvote.co.uk/weblog/images/gpa_poster-thumb.gif

Doesn't always show up for some reason, bit it is the one with the line of police, with riot shields. All say POLICE, except one which says GAY POLICE.

the slogan is;

The only difference you will notice, is the one we make.

Nuff Said[

[Hueymeister]

The day that the MOD announced that homosexuality was now allowed in the Forces, I had the pleasure of flying the chief Navy man in Hongkers just before we handed it over. CBF was late, so in an attempt to make conversation:

Huey(wessexman)meister "What do you think about homosexuality in the Navy?"

COS Navy geezer "It's fine by me ..as long as they don't make it compulsory!!!!"

Hueymeister "..........................for once lost for words............"

[16 blades]

Crash, old boy, I've come to expect better of you. You have shown you are an intelligent individual who can make reasoned arguments. I think the objections come from your use of quasi-legalistic language in an attempt to intimidate those who raise strong rebuttals of your posts (you have done this before).

By the way, nothing posted here and aimed at you can be classed as defamation, since you (like the rest of us) post under an anonymous pseudonymn - you can only be defamed by something aimed at your real identity.

Please refrain from using such tactics in future - I do not wish to lose the respect I have developed for my favorite PPRuNe lefty!

16B

[Cambridge Crash]

16 Blades - check your PMs

CC

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

CC, can we assume the deletion of your most recent obnoxious post is somehow an apology to Bloggs :E

H3F........I suggest a further visit to the DHE website, or at least the 2005 version I looked at today on the intra Net, and have a closer look which will show that you do indeed have to be married to qualify for the TLA that denotes "quarters", or if not married provide a date for the forthcoming nuptuals:p

Eagerly await your next "informative" offering:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[hyd3failure]

I suggest a further visit to the DHE website, or at least the 2005 version I looked at today on the intra Net, and have a closer look which will show that you do indeed have to be married to qualify for the TLA that denotes "quarters", or if not married provide a date for the forthcoming nuptuals

This is lifted direct from the DHE site

From the DHE website:

Entitlement to a Family quarter:

1. You must be over 18 with a family.
2. You must have at least 6 months remaining to serve.
3. You must have completed initial training.

Hope they dont throw me out of my 1/4 as I'm not married...

[Cambridge Crash]

ABIW - akin to the theme of this thread, what Fg Off Bloggs and I do in private is....private. You are not privy to our PMs so don't enter into someone else's argument, which I can happily say is resolved.

What are your objections about gay couples in quarters - or indeed gay service personnel in general? I am sure we would all enjoy reading your, er, thoughts.

CC

[D-IFF_ident]

Some may remember my battle for a quarter at XXXXX - I took my case to the Rt Hon George Robertson MP at the time. His Ministerial enquiry resulted in a letter from a Naval Capt at the MoD explaining that 'although same sex couples may be entitled to SFA, the regulations are extant that unmarried personnel are not currently permitted to occupy SFA'. When I became Marital Cat 2 I should have been entitled to SFA, but was denied it by HTS, OC PMS, OC PSF and DHE because they 'didn't believe that the other natural parent of the child would not spend more than 56 days in any 1-year period in the property'. One would be allowed to have ANY OTHER person stay in the house, but not the child's other natural parent. Anyway, the nice Padre sorted-out my 18-month battle in less than 24 hours.

I have a problem, now, with routes and dets: Who can share with whom? Are there regs in the individual services as to room-sharing. I appreciate that I cannot share a room with a female, since I am male, but should I, by the same principal therefore, not be allowed to share a room with a homosexual male? And should I be permitted to share a room with a homosexual female, since we surely share the same sexual orientation?

Hmmmm?

{edited for spolling}

[BEagle]

Back in the days before Pink Wednesday, I used the excuse that sexual orientation which was permitted in the US Armed Forces, but not in the RAF, required that any ORs under my command on overseas night stops were not required to endure USAF transit shared same-sex accommodation, where they might be subject to (then) illegal sexual advances, in order to make sure that we always stayed off-base.

Seemed to work OK. No idea what things are like nowadays, now that blatant Uniform Golf activity is seemingly permitted.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

CC my well educated chum, my last post....

"CC, can we assume the deletion of your most recent obnoxious post is somehow an apology to Bloggs"......

alluded to your assertion that Bloggs had somehow defamed you......you remember the one, where you used that new word that none of us had ever heard of :E..perjamerjslerja or something like that.

After weeks and weeks of you telling us how scholarly superior you were to us mere mortals it was quite satisfying to see you fall flat on your ar@e :E ..........shame the ensuing embarresment caused you to delete "your finest hour":p

H3F,

DHE website......application form.....marital cat or date of ensuing nupuals are mandatory fields.................any thoughts??

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[tablet_eraser]

BEagle's post raises an interesting point about the USAF's policy viz gay personnel.

The US forces' "don't ask, don't tell" policy is deceptive. It does very little to introduce equality, because it does not state that gay personnel cannot be discriminated against. The entire pretext of the rule is that gay personnel have to keep their sexuality completely secret. How is this fair?

When I joined the RAF in 2001 I spent the following 3 years keeping my previously open sexuality a secret. This is not easy, and surely leaves gay personnel subject to blackmail, previously the supposedly primary reason that homosexuality was not tolerated. Now I have nothing to worry about, and my work rate and morale has increased.

If the RN wants to encourage gay people to join up, so what? The RAF advertises in such esteemed journals as Loaded, Zoo, and FHM - I wonder when we'll see a Sun or Daily Mail headline screaming about the RAF's attempts specifically to recruit male lager louts? Everyone has the potential to make a contribution.

When all is said and done, gay personnel are allowed in the Armed Forces. So why not try to recruit them?

[BEagle]

It's surely the difference between tolerance and encouragement?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Beags,

Not sure if either of your suggestions are pertinent, would have thought equality would have been a better choice..........but as equality very rarely works BOTH WAYS I think I see where you are coming from:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Training Risky]

Our advertising doesn't specifically appeal for white, middle-class men to join - so why should it then be compelled to appeal to other sections of society?:yuk: :rolleyes:

[Mick Stability]

Short of the odd profanity or two, I can't actually remember a situation in my professional career when my sexual preferences entered into an operational scenario.

More's the pity frankly, coz I'm a bit of a breast man myself, and would've liked to have seen a lot more of it.

Since a particular group of sexual aficianados now get official government recognition of their tastes in bedroom sports - does this mean we can have more tits? Please?

[Scud-U-Like]

We have enough tits (serving and retd)

[PerArdua]

tablet_eraser

It is a shame you felt you had to hide the fact you were 'openly' gay for 3 years when you joined the RAF. I know of someone who kept a secret, the same as you, did and when he finally told everyone they were told that they knew anyway and it wasn't a surprise. In fact the people who knew him had been more frightened to ask him whether he was and the fact that it was in the open meant that all sides could relax and get on with their jobs. (Which at the end of the day is what we join the Service for).

PA

[tablet_eraser]

My god, PA, do you know me? Much the same situation as I faced...

I do agree that the RAF, and HMAF in general, need to apply their advertising to as wide an audience as possible - maybe I should clarify my FHM/Loaded/Zoo comment. There is nothing wrong with advertising in these magazines, or any appropriate magazines, in order to obtain the widest range of recruits possible. In which case, the issue is not which magazines/papers/TV stations DO carry recruiting adverts, as much as those that do NOT carry them. There is no reason to exclude gay magazines - Attitude, Gay Times, the Pink Paper, etc - so why not advertise in them? We advertised in The Voice for years, because it reached a section of the public that other magazines did not. The sooner we start seeing adverts in gay magazines, women's magazines, etc, the sooner the Services will be able to tap directly into sources of personnel which have not been exploted before.

The single item about service life most contrary to true equality is ethnic monitoring surveys. Recruitment should not target any group, but should cover everyone in order to ensure that the best candidates attest. Quotas, surveys and targets should have no place in the Service. Advertising in as wide a range of media as possible is all we should be doing, IMHO.

[buoy15]

And here's silly old me thinking the RN had got rid of their "Rum, Bum and Baccy image"

So when are they bringing back the Rum and Baccy?

Sharing on dets is easy - sleep on your back with one foot on the floor. Slightly uncomfortable, but less chance of any "back pains" if you don't

Love many, Trust a few, Make sure you guard your flue!

[PerArdua]

tablet_eraser

If "Hello 9Flt,erm Hello 9Flt" rings a bell then I know you!!! Drop me a PM.

PA

[PerArdua]

tablet_eraser

Thanks for the PM. The person I thought you was would have recognised the quote and corrected it. Your PM does not work!!!

PA